Bermuda is the world’s first country to abolish sodo-“marriage”

bermuda-5__00Yes, it is possible! The trend towards legalized sodo-“marriage” is not irreversible; social development is not a one-way road into decadence and moral corruption.

The tiny Caribbean  nation of Bermuda is the first country in the world were legalized sodo-“marriage”, which had been imposed on the unwilling nation by the arrogant and preposterous judicial fiat of  its Supreme Court in May 2017, is repealed.  Continue reading “Bermuda is the world’s first country to abolish sodo-“marriage””

Advertisements

Inter-American Court of Human Rights sodomizes international law

Monkey-JudgeIn the last years we have already seen a number of extreme and deliberate mis-interpretations of constitutional or international human rights law in order to promote abortion, euthanasia, child-trafficking, and sodomy. This is how cultural wars are fought: the aggressor (in this case the sodomy-cum-baby-slaughtering lobby) occupies the hills and then starts to fire missiles from above…

This strategy, which takes entire legal systems as its hostage was most notoriously successful at the US Supreme Court (with decisions such as Roe v. Wade on abortion and Obergefell on sodo-“marriage”), where one judge famously said that “you don’t imagine what five people can do when they happen to be Supreme Court Justices”, referring to the seemingly unlimited power the judiciary enjoys in the US. Mor recent examples include the Austrian Constitutional Court, which sought to impose the legalization of sodo-“marriage” precisely at the moment when it became clear that there was no parliamentary majority for it, or the CJEU, which seems to be preparing a similar attempt. But no case of counter-legal, illegal, or even criminal judicial activism has so far been as extreme as this week’s decision by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, through which the attempt is made to oblige all Latin American countries to legalize sodomy, sodo-“marriage”, and polygamy – all in one decision. Continue reading “Inter-American Court of Human Rights sodomizes international law”

Will European Court impose the legal recognition of sodo-“marriage” all over Europe?

914192439_b979048068z-1_20160625200647_000_g5173f5oh-1-0.jpgIt is strange to see how the powerful institutions of the EU just don’t seem to get the message. At a time where attitudes towards the EU are increasingly critical, if not hostile, in growing swathes of the population, the political and judicial elites act as if that were nothing to concern them. Subsidiarity is over, cultural imperialism holds sway.

A case in point is the issue of sodo-“marriage”, i.e. the mockery of marriage by sexual perverts, which has become legal in some Member States while it is clearly rejected by others. One might assume that in such a situation, if it does not want to simply defend the position that used to be the common ground among all civilised nations before some decadent countries like the Netherlands or Belgium started to call it into question as late as in the early Two-Thousands, the European Union should at least remain neutral, leaving Member States free to accept or reject this aberrant political fashion. But instead the EU takes side – of course for perversion and against decency. It does so without a proper political mandate, and in fact against its own foundational texts. Is anyone really believing that this will not provide further fuel to EU-scepticism?

In the Coman case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the EU, Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has issued a Legal Opinion which, if followed, would de facto oblige all EU Member States – including those who have constitutional provisions that rule out the arbitrary re-definition of marriage – to give a (perhaps limited) legal effect to “marriages” between same-sex sodomites. Continue reading “Will European Court impose the legal recognition of sodo-“marriage” all over Europe?”

Future leader(?) of German Christian Democrats is now sodo-“married”

hochzeit-auf-dem-schloss.jpgAccording to German press reports, Jens Spahn (right) has now “married” his male “partner”, Daniel Funke (left).

Jens Spahn is one of the few politicians within the German Christian Democratic Union, whom mass media consider a possible successor of Angela Merkel, should she – in the wake of her electoral defeat in September 2017, and as a result of her difficulties in forming a new government – decide to step down. Continue reading “Future leader(?) of German Christian Democrats is now sodo-“married””

Austria: Judicial miscarriage seems to legalize sodo-“marriage”. But does it really?

header_09e4166While the outcome of the recent elections clearly shows that the electorate is opposed to, or at least not interested in, the legalisation of “marriages” between sodomites, the Austrian Constitutional Court wants to legalize them nevertheless. Through a temerarious act of deliberate abuse of judicial authority – comparable to the US Supreme Court’s decision Obergefell vs. Hodges, but completely unprecedented in Europe – Austria seems set to become the first European country in which sodo-“marriage” is imposed by judicial fiat. At the same time, the so-called “registered partnerships” for homosexuals, which have been introduced in 2009, will be opened also for different-sex couples, thus creating a “second-class marriage” with similar rights but a lover level of commitment – something that the legislator never intended.

A more careful reading of the judgment, however, raises the question whether sodo-“marriage” will really become possible, even if there can be no doubt that the Constitutional Court’s intention was to introduce it. The incompetence of Austria’s supreme judges appears to be such that they have not even managed to issue a judgment that is capable of providing the outcome they want to achieve. Continue reading “Austria: Judicial miscarriage seems to legalize sodo-“marriage”. But does it really?”

CJEU holds hearing on “free movement rights” for sodomite couples

dpjka-yvoaau-aiIn times of increasing public resistance against their agenda, the LGBT lobby increasingly relies on the judicial activism of like-minded judges to impose what they cannot obtain through democratic means.

While the “strategic litigation” of the lobby so far has focused on the European Court of Human Rights (which, thanks to its relentless support for radical agendas on abortion and sodomy has by now depleted its once considerable prestige), it is now trying to involve the Court of Justice of the EU in its attempts to overturn the moral order. This is done through a legal action  (Case C – 673/16 Coman and others) in which, following a request from the Romanian Constitutional Court, the CJEU is being asked to interpret the word “spouse” in the context of EU law on freedom of movement. Continue reading “CJEU holds hearing on “free movement rights” for sodomite couples”

Austrians don’t want sodo-“marriage”. But their Constitutional Court does.

24e8e14b5e0daa5bb9bc62a398f4a49f-header_09e1373If there is something that clearly can be deduced from last month’s national elections in Austria, it is that the electorate didn’t consider the introduction of sodo-“marriage” a great priority. The parties with the greatest increase in votes were those who clearly stated that marriage is – and should remain – a union between one man and one woman: the conservative “Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the national conservative “Freedomite Party” (FPÖ). Having increased their share of votes by aggregated 13%, these two groups now dispose of a solid majority in the National Assembly and look set to form the next government. By stark contrast, the group that – already by picking lesbian activist Ulrike Lunacek as their lead candidate – most aggressively turned sodo-“marriage” into a core part of their electoral program lost more than two thirds of its votes and all of the parliamentary seats it had previously held.

As a result, a parliamentary majority for introducing sodo-“marriage” seems completely out of reach within the next five years. But despite this, it could nevertheless become a reality within the next few weeks.

The reason is that the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has, in a surprising about-face, announced that it has doubts regarding the constitutionality of the legal definition of marriage set out in Article 44 of the Civil Code, and intends to subject that definition to an examination ex officio, with the likely outcome that the part of it stating that the two spouses must be “of different sex” will be removed. Continue reading “Austrians don’t want sodo-“marriage”. But their Constitutional Court does.”